“How noisy is your 7D?”
Oh, boy!
After reading all 22 pages and looking at those “wonderfully” resuscitated files I came to conclusion that there is an easier solution - called Nikon or for that matter any camera with new Sony sensor.
There is probably less pain, dealing with stupidity and incompetence at Nikon Service, in case of equipment failures, than removing all that pepper spray and dealing with inadequate DR of the Canon cameras.
Unfortunately Canon after big success, a decade ago with the 10D and its successors, went into deep hibernation where it remains.
Lan11 wrote:
“How noisy is your 7D?”
Oh, boy!
After reading all 22 pages and looking at those “wonderfully” resuscitated files I came to conclusion that there is an easier solution - called Nikon or for that matter any camera with new Sony sensor.
There is probably less pain, dealing with stupidity and incompetence at Nikon Service, in case of equipment failures, than removing all that pepper spray and dealing with inadequate DR of the Canon cameras.
Unfortunately Canon after big success, a decade ago with the 10D and its successors, went into deep hibernation where it remains.
The easier solution would be for you not to read threads on this forum.
aznature wrote:
I own the 7D for few years which replaced the 1D Mark IIn.
noise is not the issue. Acutance is.
Great resolution and sharpness but poor Edge definition in 100%
I replaced it with the 1d mark III and I am very happy with this move
I am tired of great images on the camera LCD and poor on the big screen
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
yeah 'cos thats always the answer. dont like 18mp on a smaller sensor @ 100% then replace it with less pixels over a larger area and still view @100%
why bother? 100% is just for checking . It bares no relation to the WHOLE image .
the mk3 is a fine camera , but if you veiwed it at the equal resolution as the 7D (way over 100%) then i bet you wouldnt like that either .
I never bothered with my Mk2n , as I found images in Higher ISO to be worse (when viewng the whole image on screen) and it left me no cropping room when I was even more reach limited than with the 7D.
The only thing it did better was BIF. I found the AF on the 'n handled that better. anything else and the 7D did just as well or better ...Show more →
uz2work wrote:
I'm afraid that there are some who will never understand that comparing images from cameras with different pixel densities at the pixel level is completely meaningless to how actual images will look. For those who insist on comparing images from cameras with different pixel levels at the pixel level, they should go back to using the 3 MP 30D or 4 MP 1D bodies that many were using a decade ago. The pixels from those cameras will be beautiful, and the images will also be impressive on the screen or in small prints. Unfortunately, that beauty will not be sustained if printing large is desired or if more than minimal cropping is necessary. While I have no interest in going back to the pixel densities of a decade ago or even of 4 or 5 years ago, I'm guessing that there are those whose need to judge images at the pixel level would lead them to be happier by turning the clock back.
All true, but in defense of aznature, what is the point of having such high resolution in a camera (not necessarily the 7D, but any camera) if the resolution cannot be fully used to make prints? If the only way a particular camera looks good is when the images are drastically subsampled, then you have paid for sensor resolution that you can't really utilize.
I for one am tired of camera makers offering sensors with ever increasing resolution that lack pixel-level sharpness and clarity even at low to mid ISO speeds. Professional photographers need tools that can deliver critically sharp files day in and day out without concern for output size.
garyvot wrote:
...what is the point of having such high resolution in a camera (not necessarily the 7D, but any camera) if the resolution cannot be fully used to make prints? If the only way a particular camera looks good is when the images are drastically subsampled, then you have paid for sensor resolution that you can't really utilize.
That's not it at all; the correct way to compare cameras if one makes prints is to compare prints. If you print an 18MP image at 8X10 and an 8MP image at 8X10 (or whatever given size, as long as they're equal) you will have a true comparison. Looking at 100 pixels from each on screen will not give an accurate comparison. Because each pixel prints smaller when you have more pixels on the same size print, noise will be smoother and less visible.
You can do the same on screen, by comparing each camera's images at the same screen size, but not at 100% because you wll be artifically increasing the size of the noise from the higher-resolution camera. Think about it: when sending your pictures to be viewed by others, would you send only a certain number of pixels from part of the image, or would you send the whole image? I'd send the whole image, and whether it was taken with my 8MP 20D or my 18MP 7D I'd expect the viewer to look at the whole image at once, sized to take up most if not all of his or her monitor's real estate.
garyvot wrote:
All true, but in defense of aznature, what is the point of having such high resolution in a camera (not necessarily the 7D, but any camera) if the resolution cannot be fully used to make prints? If the only way a particular camera looks good is when the images are drastically subsampled, then you have paid for sensor resolution that you can't really utilize.
I for one am tired of camera makers offering sensors with ever increasing resolution that lack pixel-level sharpness and clarity even at low to mid ISO speeds. Professional photographers need tools that can deliver critically sharp files day in and day out without concern for output size....Show more →
My experience with the NEX 7 and the 7D is that the NEX 7 delivers higher per pixel sharpness than the 7D, and similar noise at the pixel level. This tells me that the 7D, while the best APS-C at the time of introduction, is not the last word.
BrianO wrote:
You can do the same on screen, by comparing each camera's images at the same screen size, but not at 100% because you wll be artifically increasing the size of the noise from the higher-resolution camera. Think about it: when sending your pictures to be viewed by others, would you send only a certain number of pixels from part of the image, or would you send the whole image? I'd send the whole image, and whether it was taken with my 8MP 20D or my 18MP 7D I'd expect the viewer to look at the whole image at once, sized to take up most if not all of his or her monitor's real estate....Show more →
Hello
Is that what NASA does when comparing images from the older Opportunity and the images from the more recent and I think higher resloution Curiosity
mikeengles wrote:
...Is that what NASA does when comparing images from the older Opportunity and the images from the more recent and I think higher resloution Curiosity
BrianO wrote:
That's not it at all; the correct way to compare cameras if one makes prints is to compare prints. If you print an 18MP image at 8X10 and an 8MP image at 8X10 (or whatever given size, as long as they're equal) you will have a true comparison. Looking at 100 pixels from each on screen will not give an accurate comparison. Because each pixel prints smaller when you have more pixels on the same size print, noise will be smoother and less visible.
You can do the same on screen, by comparing each camera's images at the same screen size, but not at 100% because you wll be artifically increasing the size of the noise from the higher-resolution camera. Think about it: when sending your pictures to be viewed by others, would you send only a certain number of pixels from part of the image, or would you send the whole image? I'd send the whole image, and whether it was taken with my 8MP 20D or my 18MP 7D I'd expect the viewer to look at the whole image at once, sized to take up most if not all of his or her monitor's real estate....Show more →
alundeb wrote:
My experience with the NEX 7 and the 7D is that the NEX 7 delivers higher per pixel sharpness than the 7D, and similar noise at the pixel level. This tells me that the 7D, while the best APS-C at the time of introduction, is not the last word.
You mean just like the NEX 7 is not the last word?
Imagemaster wrote:
You mean just like the NEX 7 is not the last word?
Right now it requires a litte stretch of the imagination, but in three years i might get there too
Pixel level sharpness has everything to do with lens MTF and AA filter strength. The last one is often forgotten. Good AA filters are very expensive. I hope for high enough sensor resolution to get rid of them.
I am sure that NASA are 'pixel peepers' as each pixel of extra resolution is worth millions of dollars and really very disapponted if the Curiosity images look blurred and noisy in comparison to those from Opportunity.
BrianO wrote:
That's not it at all; the correct way to compare cameras if one makes prints is to compare prints. If you print an 18MP image at 8X10 and an 8MP image at 8X10 (or whatever given size, as long as they're equal) you will have a true comparison. Looking at 100 pixels from each on screen will not give an accurate comparison. Because each pixel prints smaller when you have more pixels on the same size print, noise will be smoother and less visible.
You can do the same on screen, by comparing each camera's images at the same screen size, but not at 100% because you wll be artifically increasing the size of the noise from the higher-resolution camera. Think about it: when sending your pictures to be viewed by others, would you send only a certain number of pixels from part of the image, or would you send the whole image? I'd send the whole image, and whether it was taken with my 8MP 20D or my 18MP 7D I'd expect the viewer to look at the whole image at once, sized to take up most if not all of his or her monitor's real estate....Show more →
You misunderstand: I am aware of the fallacy of comparing images from cameras having different resolutions and sensor sizes at 100%. I have made the same argument myself many times: you must first equalize magnification to have a valid comparison.
But that's not really my point. I would rather have a camera with an APS-C sensor having 12 million *clear and sharp* pixels than one with 18 or 24mp that injects golf-ball size grain at ISO 400 and above and in which noise processing kills all sharpness at the file level. (This is true even though I know that I can improve the results by downsampling.)
I get that if all I need is an 8x10 or smaller print, pixel level sharpness at 100% won't matter that much. But it's the headroom to go bigger that is lacking.
Imagemaster wrote: “The easier solution would be for you not to read threads on this forum.“
I expressed my view, but didn’t ask for any advice.
If my opinion is unpalatable that’s your problem.
This is a typical reaction to a valid criticism of a “proud owner” with a bruised ego.
Setting sharpening to 0 during conversion and then sharpening in ARC (or whichever app.) doesn’t always produce better files. It may work for a specific file, but definitely not for every file and every camera. There is no boilerplate solution. Those who often crop excessively should get a longer lens or get closer to the object if possible, but
if the excessive noise is a constant problem there are other equipement choices.
garyvot wrote:
You misunderstand: I am aware of the fallacy of comparing images from cameras having different resolutions and sensor sizes at 100%. I have made the same argument myself many times: you must first equalize magnification to have a valid comparison.
But that's not really my point. I would rather have a camera with an APS-C sensor having 12 million *clear and sharp* pixels than one with 18 or 24mp that injects golf-ball size grain at ISO 400 and above and in which noise processing kills all sharpness at the file level.
Ah, I see. Yes, I misunderstood. It looks like you and I are of the same mindset, then.
"Clear and sharp pixels" is one of the reasons I held such high hope for AA-filterless cameras like the new Fuji offerings, but it seems -- so far, at least -- that the theory isn't being matched by real-world improvements.
Larger sensors with larger sensels still seem to give the best performance at any given point in time. I just wish I could afford the jump to medium format digital.
